3 ms·

> Pulling code from random developers machines might sound pretty neat Isn't that just a straw man argument? To the extent that it applies to distributed vers

by sago 8y ago

> Pulling code from random developers machines might sound pretty neat Isn't that just a straw man argument? To the extent that it applies to distributed version control, it seems like an invented problem (i.e. I don't know anyone who uses a dvcs that pulls from 'random' developers). To the extent that it is true (we are all probably guilty of using code from developers we don't know and have not properly vetted) it seems like just as much---if not more of a problem---with github-esque projects. > I often get the impression that what they really love is local commits That's a really good point I have not considered before. So would you say that git's main contribution to the development community is showing the power of a VCS with local commits? And that's why github is dominating core git?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I interpreted “random” in the parent comment to mean “ad hoc, but planned”. Meaning, not random, untrusted or unknown engineers, but engineers from an obvious trusted group (like my team), just accessed in an ad hoc manner. The point being that short of choosing a convention for which person’s copy (or which machine, etc) counts as the primary source of record (which would then just be poor man’s centralization with the admin costs and maintenance of any centralization tools now a burden on the team rather than a third-party product), then interacting in an ad hoc way with even just my known team’s set of distributed clones of the project turns into a bookkeeping problem nobody wants. I can also imagine a non-centralized model can lead to many more complicated workflow failure modes. I’m just thinking about how often novices get stuck with rebasing errors or squashing commits incorrectly, and bikeshedding arguments over whether it’s ok to ever revert master or if you should intentionally keep mistakes in the history and correct with new commits. I can imagine it being even worse when there are fewer conventions, since conventions are often the only way to avoid these bikeshedding debates about preferred git hygiene methods.
LamaOfRuin 8y ago
By random developer's machines they meant the actual machines. You can technically pull from another developer's (random or not, but anyone with the repo) actual laptop rather than going through an intermediary. That was in fact one of the arguments a few true believers used in favor of DVCS when it was still a novelty. The think I think truly gives developers comfort, in addition to all the nice features it makes simple, is LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe). When everyone has a full copy of the repo, even if you generally work through an intermediary, the central repo being blown away or taken control of by a bad actor doesn't mean you need to reconstruct the history of the code from whatever single snapshot checkouts individuals happen to have. That said, I will agree that the workflows enabled, as well as the power of a common platform, are probably what really let git and github become the new default. edit: Also I imagine being able to paw through the entire history and bisect entirely locally are vital features for a small (but essential especially of open source) minority of developers.

by sago 8y ago

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I interpreted “random” in the parent comment to mean “ad hoc, but planned”. Meaning, not random, untrusted or unknown engineers, but engineers from an obvious trusted group (like my team), just accessed in an ad hoc manner. The point being that short of choosing a convention for which person’s copy (or which machine, etc) counts as the primary source of record (which would then just be poor man’s centralization with the admin costs and maintenance of any centralization tools now a burden on the team rather than a third-party product), then interacting in an ad hoc way with even just my known team’s set of distributed clones of the project turns into a bookkeeping problem nobody wants. I can also imagine a non-centralized model can lead to many more complicated workflow failure modes. I’m just thinking about how often novices get stuck with rebasing errors or squashing commits incorrectly, and bikeshedding arguments over whether it’s ok to ever revert master or if you should intentionally keep mistakes in the history and correct with new commits. I can imagine it being even worse when there are fewer conventions, since conventions are often the only way to avoid these bikeshedding debates about preferred git hygiene methods.

LamaOfRuin 8y ago

By random developer's machines they meant the actual machines. You can technically pull from another developer's (random or not, but anyone with the repo) actual laptop rather than going through an intermediary. That was in fact one of the arguments a few true believers used in favor of DVCS when it was still a novelty. The think I think truly gives developers comfort, in addition to all the nice features it makes simple, is LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe). When everyone has a full copy of the repo, even if you generally work through an intermediary, the central repo being blown away or taken control of by a bad actor doesn't mean you need to reconstruct the history of the code from whatever single snapshot checkouts individuals happen to have. That said, I will agree that the workflows enabled, as well as the power of a common platform, are probably what really let git and github become the new default. edit: Also I imagine being able to paw through the entire history and bisect entirely locally are vital features for a small (but essential especially of open source) minority of developers.